Opinion
22-16734
02-27-2024
PHILIP ANDRA GRIGSBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARK GUTIERREZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00451-JAS-LCK, James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Philip Andra Grigsby appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2023), we affirm.
Grigsby contends the prison is imposing restrictions on him that are unconstitutional and contrary to the terms of his judgment, and that prison officials are violating his constitutional rights by denying him adequate medical care. The district court correctly concluded that, because these claims pertain to the conditions of his confinement, they are not cognizable in habeas. See id. at 106769 (holding that allegations of "ancillary harms resulting from the conditions of confinement" cannot be raised in a § 2241 petition).
Grigsby's motion for an injunction is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.